NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Krazakistan]

Don't dis the Su-34, it's actually pretty agile.

Don't get me wrong; performance-wise it's great. But something about the wide cockpit, flattened nose, and long tail just puts me ill at ease.

I'm actually in the process of considering it as the Soodean Navy's main carrier strike aircraft. As much as I hate the way the thing looks, my only other IC option would be a navalized Su-24, which would be worse off in pretty much every regard.

I actually like the look of the Su-34 all together, but that's just me. But as for its service in my military, I'm using it as a long range strike fighter and CAS. The maritime strike version, the Su-32, is used by naval aviation for use in the Baltic.

[Paleocacher]

I have roughly 10 million people in my armed forces out of a population of 5 billion. My navy consists of hundreds of warships. The military is described in the attached signature. Is it too big. I have been invaded before. I have also invaded other countries before. Should I downsize?

[Velkanika]

Don't get me wrong; performance-wise it's great. But something about the wide cockpit, flattened nose, and long tail just puts me ill at ease.

I'm actually in the process of considering it as the Soodean Navy's main carrier strike aircraft. As much as I hate the way the thing looks, my only other IC option would be a navalized Su-24, which would be worse off in pretty much every regard.

That thing between the engines is where you hitch the oxen to when you drag it around to till your crops. Let's face it, the AA-10 certainly has big enough fins to let it till a field.

There's the option of a navalized MiG-23, you know.

---

I have roughly 10 million people in my armed forces out of a population of 5 billion. My navy consists of hundreds of warships. The military is described in the attached signature. Is it too big. I have been invaded before. I have also invaded other countries before. Should I downsize?

You should rebuild your military from scratch. Its present form is in no way realistic or plausible.

[Transnapastain]

Don't dis the Su-34, it's actually pretty agile.

Don't get me wrong; performance-wise it's great. But something about the wide cockpit, flattened nose, and long tail just puts me ill at ease.

I'm actually in the process of considering it as the Soodean Navy's main carrier strike aircraft. As much as I hate the way the thing looks, my only other IC option would be a navalized Su-24, which would be worse off in pretty much every regard.

Isn't the "toilet" little more than a fancy pee bottle?

When nature calls 3 hours into your 10-hour flight, that fancy pee bottle starts to look really good.

There was also a proposal for a navalized MiG-23, which was supposed to be a navalized MiG-23ML, and then another multirole proposal with strike configuration.

Of course, you'll be rocking abut half the ordinance.

From what I read, which isn't a lot, a Su-24K idea was examined for use aboard the Ulyanovsk, and the idea was abandoned, citing poor aerodynamic performance and an unacceptable weight increase.

and, given your reason for disliking the Su-34, I guess you hate F-111's too?

There's the option of a navalized MiG-23, you know.

Of course, you'll be rocking abut half the ordinance.

[Oaledonia]

I'm not a hipster, I use Western military supplies thx.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I'm not a hipster, I use Western military supplies thx.

Hipster Russia using Soviet swag before it was cool.

[Velkanika]

There's the option of a navalized MiG-23, you know.

Of course, you'll be rocking abut half the ordinance.

That's what I figured for the Su-24K as well. I decided to use a few Fencers on my Ulyanovsks (6 total) to give them just a little more strike, EW, and reconnaissance capacity as I figure I might as well bring along another type of heavy aircraft to make the two catapults worth it. Lighter aircraft, mainly BARCAP fighters, can use the bow ramp while the heavies use the catapults.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Stability issues aside, a navalized MiG-23/27 would be even worse than a navalized Su-24; older airframe, smaller payload, shorter range, and much more tractorness. I'm looking for a heavy, long-distance strike aircraft - the other roles are more or less filled.

I also don't already have MiG-23/27 in service, so there's no real convenience factor. Su-24 was an attractive option for me because it's already in service with land-based aviation, but I'd already heard mention of the problems with naval conversion for the Ulyanovsk, and most of its stats (speed, payload, range) are substantially below those for Su-34.

Most importantly, though, I already have Su-33 as my carrier-based multirole, so adopting Su-34 would make my logistical/mechanical personnel very grateful. That, alongside with the Soodean doctrinal obsession with any platform that can carry long-range supersonic AShMs, tips the balance in its favor.

[Velkanika]

Stability issues aside, a navalized MiG-23/27 would be even worse than a navalized Su-24; older airframe, smaller payload, shorter range, and much more tractorness. I'm looking for a heavy, long-distance strike aircraft - the other roles are more or less filled.

I also don't already have MiG-23/27 in service, so there's no real convenience factor. Su-24 was an attractive option for me because it's already in service with land-based aviation, but I'd already heard mention of the problems with naval conversion for the Ulyanovsk, and most of its stats (speed, payload, range) are substantially below those for Su-34.

Most importantly, though, I already have Su-33 as my carrier-based multirole, so adopting Su-34 would make my logistical/mechanical personnel very grateful. That, alongside with the Soodean doctrinal obsession with any platform that can carry long-range supersonic AShMs, tips the balance in its favor.

Soviet and Russian naval doctrine supports using carrier aircraft to defend the battlegroup and find targets for ship-launched long-range heavy AShMs like the SS-N-19 Shipwreck. You don't need to use your aircraft as the primary attacking force in naval combat when all of your ships are loaded with cruise missiles.

[Rich and Corporations]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... 1win90.htm

The McNamara Era

Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara has come under a great deal of criticism for his stewardship of the Department of Defense during the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Unfortunately, there is much to criticize, but there is much, too, that deserves a closer look, particularly his policies affecting subsequent American fighter aircraft. McNamara greatly strengthened the Office of the Secretary of Defense (consequently diminishing therole of the service secretaries and the military chiefs of staff). High on his agenda was improving coordination and cooperation between the services, in part by deleting or combining duplicative programs and development efforts. He directed the acquisition of the F-4and A-7 by the Air Force and the development of a tactical fighter experimental (TFX), which became the F-111. McNamara has been justly criticized for the latter decision, but the former--supplying the Air Force with variants of the F-4 and A-7--is worthy of much more praise than it has received. Indeed, his initiatives restructured Air Force fighter forces to meet the kind of realworld needs that the United States faced in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

To understand McNamara's commonality approach, one must make a distinction betweenusage by a service of anaircraft initially developed for another service and the joint simultaneous development of a single aircraft for dual-service use. The F-4 and A-7 are examples of the former, while the TFX/F-111 is an example of the latter. As a rule, theformer category--taking an existing aircraft and modifying it for the needs of another service--has a much greater success rate than the latter, Further, there is a corollary that one can add concerning joint-service use: it is possible to take an aircraft intended for shipboard service and modify it successfully for operation from land. However, it is extremely difficult to take a land-based aircraft and modify it for operation from a ship without undertaking extensive revision and redesign of the airplane. Failure to heed this dictum was one of the most serious errors that prevented the attainment of McNamara's commonality goal with the TFX/F-111.

Justified on the grounds of saving approximately $1 billion, the TFX/F-111 program eventually generated a loss of about the same amount. Though much has been written of the civilian-versus-military nature of decision making on the program, the critical point too often ignored in discussions of the TFX/F-111 experience was the basic incompatibility of developing a single common airframe to undertake widely differing Air Force and Navy missions. It has become fashionable in some quarters since the time of the F-111 to criticize McNamara's naive belief in the F-111. It must be noted, however, that many senior Air Force officers were at that time confident, optimistic, and even exuberant over the anticipated benefits that they believed would accrue from this joint-service, multipurpose, horsedesigned-by-a-committee airplane.

[Krazeria]

I'm not a hipster, I use Western military supplies thx.

Hipster Russia using Soviet swag before it was cool.

Stalin swag

[Roski]

I have an interesting little bit of the past of my country, which takes place well in the future of Earth today...

Do you guys like it?

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=roski/detail=factbook/id=244920

They revert to Modern Tech because they knew how, there was no experimentation involved.

Its not very detailed, because I want to make an RP off of it.

[Pharthan]

Just an idea: Would having a small fleet of nuclear powered ships for use as a kind of "elite" strike force in conjunction with a marine component make sense?

Yes, if you're looking for extended range but don't have a lot of overseas ports.

[Mitheldalond]

Just an idea: Would having a small fleet of nuclear powered ships for use as a kind of "elite" strike force in conjunction with a marine component make sense?

Yes, if you're looking for extended range but don't have a lot of overseas ports.

With the exception of amphibious assault ships and anything smaller than a frigate, my entire navy is nuclear.

[Rich and Corporations]

Yes, if you're looking for extended range but don't have a lot of overseas ports.

With the exception of amphibious assault ships and anything smaller than a frigate, my entire navy is nuclear.

oil is practically free in NS
and so is manpower

so why nuclear?

[New Vihenia]

Don't get me wrong; performance-wise it's great. But something about the wide cockpit, flattened nose, and long tail just puts me ill at ease.

lol.. Then you may opt for Su-33KUB then.



It recently upgraded with Al-31FP engine similar as Su-30MKI and Zhuk MSF phased array.

[Velkanika]

With the exception of amphibious assault ships and anything smaller than a frigate, my entire navy is nuclear.

oil is practically free in NS
and so is manpower

This brings up the specter of those supertankers from page 125...

Samoz?
Do you want to sink a tanker?
Come on, let's fight a war
I never see you anymore
Come out the door
It's like you've gone awaaaaay!

[The Akasha Colony]

oil is practically free in NS
and so is manpower

so why nuclear?

Manpower certainly isn't free. Oil is unlikely to be so either, since despite the number of countries that claim huge oil reserves, NS also has a lot of first world countries gulping down oil by the supertanker.

But I suspect fuel prices aren't the issue, it's almost certainly range.

[Rich and Corporations]

oil is practically free in NS
and so is manpower

so why nuclear?

Manpower certainly isn't free. Oil is unlikely to be so either, since despite the number of countries that claim huge oil reserves, NS also has a lot of first world countries gulping down oil by the supertanker.

But I suspect fuel prices aren't the issue, it's almost certainly range.

this reminds me of the white papers I've read on nuclear cargo ships

[Mitheldalond]

With the exception of amphibious assault ships and anything smaller than a frigate, my entire navy is nuclear.

oil is practically free in NS
and so is manpower

so why nuclear?

Practically infinite range, and the ability to maintain flank speed for practically an unlimited duration.

You don't have to worry about some ships running out of fuel before others, or whether all your ships will be able to keep up.

[Imperializt Russia]

I know, it looks like a flying tractor towing a plow.

Su-27 is actually fairly smooth as far as Russian aircraft go. Su-7 and MiG-21, on the other hand, look like they were hastily thrown together in some guy's backyard steel mill.

And then there's Su-34, which is a bloody flying platypus.

It doesn't have a cockpit, it has a cabin.
Eat it, F-111.

oil is practically free in NS
and so is manpower

so why nuclear?

Practically infinite range, and the ability to maintain flank speed for practically an unlimited duration.

You don't have to worry about some ships running out of fuel before others, or whether all your ships will be able to keep up.

Nuclear boats also have a large number of disadvantages of complement the list of advantages.
Issues along with cost were cited for replacing the Queen Elizabeth class carrier's nuclear plant with a steam plant, and the Kuznetsov's overhaul proposed replacing its steam plant with a nuclear plant.
The Kirov carried a nuclear plant and steam plant, for a variety of technological concerns.

[Eahland]

As a man who has played far to much Kerbal space program, this is a problem that can be rectified with BIGGER ENGINES

Not when the problem is the wings being torn off if you try to maneuver.

If your engines are big enough, you don't need wings!

[Rich and Corporations]

Not when the problem is the wings being torn off if you try to maneuver.

If your engines are big enough, you don't need wings!

landing is for cowards

[Triplebaconation]

Su-27 is actually fairly smooth as far as Russian aircraft go. Su-7 and MiG-21, on the other hand, look like they were hastily thrown together in some guy's backyard steel mill.

And then there's Su-34, which is a bloody flying platypus.

It doesn't have a cockpit, it has a cabin.
Eat it, F-111.

Do you think F-111 pilots had to piss their pants in their space-age crew escape module or something?

There aren't any tracking radars in orbit. You're just making stuff up.

If there's a Soyuz or Progress capsule up there, they have tracking radar for acquiring the ISS as part of the full automatic docking procedure.

This isn't just perhaps the most ludicrous example of moving the goalpost I've ever seen, it's completely wrong. Kurs is a simple rangefinding system.

I'm willing to bet there are a few more that are up there as well on classified military satellites from the duration of the Cold War.

Doesn't this completely contradict everything you've been saying?

[Imperializt Russia]

It doesn't have a cockpit, it has a cabin.
Eat it, F-111.

Do you think F-111 pilots had to piss their pants in their space-age crew escape module or something?

Gotta say, I'm not seeing a cubicle.